Agenda item

The Committee considered a report of the Strategic Director – Corporate and Policy seeking approval of a basis for the Council responding to the Government’s Consultation Paper on the Members’ Code of Conduct.

It was noted that there were separate codes of conduct for Members and officers, both of which appeared in the Halton Constitution. The Members’ Code included the Ten Principles of Public Life recommended in the Neil Report into Conduct in Public Life, which had been prescribed by law. Halton’s version followed the national model. Members accepting office agreed to be guided by the Code and breach of the Code was dealt with under the Standards Committee process.

The officers’ Code of Conduct had never been prescribed by law although there had been a national model recommended at one time by the Local Government Management Board (LGMB), which was substantially the model approved by the Council and included in the Constitution. Breach of the Code could form the basis for engaging the Disciplinary Code. Officers were expected to comply with the Code and, in recent years, employees’ Particulars of Employment had explicitly required them to comply with its terms. This Code of Conduct was in addition to various other codes that certain officers were subject to; for example employees who belonged to particular professional bodies.

Since the introduction of the Local Government Act 2000 there had been power to establish a national statutory code of conduct for officers. The Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG) had published a new consultation paper in October 2008 inviting responses to 22 questions relating to “Codes of Conduct for Local Authority Members and Employees” with comments to be submitted to the Department by 24^th December 2008.

The report outlined the areas that the consultation paper was inviting comments upon in terms of both Members and officers. Consultation on the officers’ Code of Conduct fell within the remit of the Executive Board and, as such, the Board had been requested to consider this at its meeting of 20^th December 2008. Comments from the Standards Committee relating to the Members’ Code of Conduct consultation would be reported to the Board the following day for information.

The Committee considered the proposed consultation response to the Member Code outlined within Appendix A to the report and considered issues such as:

• the inclusion of police cautions to the definition of “criminal offence”; and
• tribunals relating to the conduct of Members in a private capacity that resulted in a finding of discrimination.

Although the decision on the consultation relating to the officers’ Code was within the remit of the Executive Board, the Standards Committee also made recommendations in this respect relating to question 18 and the need for employees to register their interests publicly. Members agreed that this aspect should not be restricted to those who were on a salary scale prescribed for politically restricted posts.

In addition, Parish Councillor Crawford requested his concerns be noted regarding the current requirements for Members, and the proposed requirements for officers, and the potential impact this could have on obtaining voluntary representatives and appointing clerks. However, the remaining Members of the Committee agreed that the principle that there should be a Code of Conduct for Parish Council Members was correct.

RESOLVED: That

(1)       the consultation in respect of a revised Officers’ Code of Conduct being considered by the Executive Board, and the proposed response to this consultation outlined in Appendix B to the report, be noted;

(2)       the Executive Board be recommended that the response to question 18 be amended to read “yes the Code should require employees to register their interests publicly”; and

(3)       the Strategic Director – Corporate and Policy be authorised to draw up and submit a response to the Consultation Paper in respect of the Members’ Code of Conduct as outlined in Appendix A to the report subject to the inclusion of the following requests:

i)      that further consideration be given to including police cautions in the definition of “criminal offence”; and

ii)      that further consideration be given as to whether the conduct of Members in a private capacity that resulted in a tribunal finding of discrimination should be capable of amounting to a breach of the Code.